Even more horrible is "woke bae." The first few times I heard it I thought it was a foreign phrase. Eventually, I realized it was some kind of slang that a whole bunch of podcasters AND pundits started saying to be either cool or ironic or both. So then I had to go look it up. WHAT A STUPID FUCKING PHRASE. Why would people want to sound mentally impaired when they speak?

What's even funnier is that 'bae' apparently is actually the Danish word for 'shit'. I wonder if most of the 'hip' crowd realize this?

In other news, I will try to cut down on my use of 'adulting,' based on this thread.

"undocumented immigrant" instead of illegal alien or illegal immigrant. Don't downplay it - call it like it is.

Some would say that your words are the ones that attach judgment to the status of a person, so your description would be "up-playing it" in your parlance. Most people agree that human beings aren't "illegal". But their status may be documented or undocumented.

"undocumented immigrant" instead of illegal alien or illegal immigrant. Don't downplay it - call it like it is.

Some would say that your words are the ones that attach judgment to the status of a person, so your description would be "up-playing it" in your parlance. Most people agree that human beings aren't "illegal". But their status may be documented or undocumented.

"They" would be wrong to say that those humans aren't illegal. This is direct from government documentation:

"Illegal AlienAlso known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."

"undocumented immigrant" instead of illegal alien or illegal immigrant. Don't downplay it - call it like it is.

Some would say that your words are the ones that attach judgment to the status of a person, so your description would be "up-playing it" in your parlance. Most people agree that human beings aren't "illegal". But their status may be documented or undocumented.

Would we be allowed to say "he is here illegally? " We can say " he has a gun illegally."

Or should I say " he is an undocmented gun owner" to indicate he has no permit?

Anyway.

I hate this new custom of cutting off part of the word " invitation" and saying "I received an invite to Jessie's party."

It is one thing to turn a noun into a verb if there is no appropriate verb, but when there is an appropriate verb, stop!! I rant because I just saw an article about someone wearing her "hand-loomed" shawl. Ack. It is a hand-woven shawl, we have the vocabulary, people. A loom is a structure on which cloth is woven, not loomed. Weave, weaving, woven, not loom, looming, loomed.

It is one thing to turn a noun into a verb if there is no appropriate verb, but when there is an appropriate verb, stop!! I rant because I just saw an article about someone wearing her "hand-loomed" shawl. Ack. It is a hand-woven shawl, we have the vocabulary, people. A loom is a structure on which cloth is woven, not loomed. Weave, weaving, woven, not loom, looming, loomed.

They probably just meant that a large, floating hand perpetually looms over the shawl.

It is one thing to turn a noun into a verb if there is no appropriate verb, but when there is an appropriate verb, stop!! I rant because I just saw an article about someone wearing her "hand-loomed" shawl. Ack. It is a hand-woven shawl, we have the vocabulary, people. A loom is a structure on which cloth is woven, not loomed. Weave, weaving, woven, not loom, looming, loomed.

They probably just meant that a large, floating hand perpetually looms over the shawl.

"undocumented immigrant" instead of illegal alien or illegal immigrant. Don't downplay it - call it like it is.

Some would say that your words are the ones that attach judgment to the status of a person, so your description would be "up-playing it" in your parlance. Most people agree that human beings aren't "illegal". But their status may be documented or undocumented.

"They" would be wrong to say that those humans aren't illegal. This is direct from government documentation:

"Illegal AlienAlso known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."

"undocumented immigrant" instead of illegal alien or illegal immigrant. Don't downplay it - call it like it is.

Some would say that your words are the ones that attach judgment to the status of a person, so your description would be "up-playing it" in your parlance. Most people agree that human beings aren't "illegal". But their status may be documented or undocumented.

"They" would be wrong to say that those humans aren't illegal. This is direct from government documentation:

"Illegal Alien - Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."

"undocumented immigrant" instead of illegal alien or illegal immigrant. Don't downplay it - call it like it is.

Some would say that your words are the ones that attach judgment to the status of a person, so your description would be "up-playing it" in your parlance. Most people agree that human beings aren't "illegal". But their status may be documented or undocumented.

"They" would be wrong to say that those humans aren't illegal. This is direct from government documentation:

"Illegal Alien - Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."

It's weird that you feel the need to use the term 'Illegal Alien' while referencing a website that indicates the equivalency of 'Illegal' and 'Undocumented' while referencing the term.

Both websites specifically state "illegal alien" as a government term. If you read the comments prior to yours, you will see that I was responding to someone that didn't think humans could actually be illegal. So I linked to the government documentation that specifically defines "illegal alien" while mentioning "undocumented alien" as an alternative. If you look at my very first comment on the topic, you will see that the terminology I would like to go away is "undocumented immigrant." I guess, I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that or why I should even have to explain it. People having been posting some pretty minor things that they would like to see go away, and this is one of mine. You don't have to agree with it, despite the government definition.

Quote

Even stranger given that your ancestry is not native and you are a multi-generational anchor baby who descended from illegal alien stock.

I'm a multi-generation American and legal through and through. Did you see me complain about anchor babies being considered illegal? They are actually considered citizens, as crazy as that might sound. Although, I don't see what that has to do with me posting about terminology I would like to see go away. Are you confused or trying to confuse others? Are you going to complain about any other posts here? I find it strange that you are singling me out.

"undocumented immigrant" instead of illegal alien or illegal immigrant. Don't downplay it - call it like it is.

Some would say that your words are the ones that attach judgment to the status of a person, so your description would be "up-playing it" in your parlance. Most people agree that human beings aren't "illegal". But their status may be documented or undocumented.

"They" would be wrong to say that those humans aren't illegal. This is direct from government documentation:

"Illegal Alien - Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."

It's weird that you feel the need to use the term 'Illegal Alien' while referencing a website that indicates the equivalency of 'Illegal' and 'Undocumented' while referencing the term.

Both websites specifically state "illegal alien" as a government term. If you read the comments prior to yours, you will see that I was responding to someone that didn't think humans could actually be illegal. So I linked to the government documentation that specifically defines "illegal alien" while mentioning "undocumented alien" as an alternative. If you look at my very first comment on the topic, you will see that the terminology I would like to go away is "undocumented immigrant." I guess, I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that or why I should even have to explain it. People having been posting some pretty minor things that they would like to see go away, and this is one of mine. You don't have to agree with it, despite the government definition.

Quote

Even stranger given that your ancestry is not native and you are a multi-generational anchor baby who descended from illegal alien stock.

I'm a multi-generation American and legal through and through. Did you see me complain about anchor babies being considered illegal? They are actually considered citizens, as crazy as that might sound. Although, I don't see what that has to do with me posting about terminology I would like to see go away. Are you confused or trying to confuse others? Are you going to complain about any other posts here? I find it strange that you are singling me out.

(Emphasis is mine). You're right...you can write any word/phrase you like...that's the point of this thread. Today especially is difficult because of the political atmosphere we're in and this morning's announcement to end DACA. I would have said the same thing though if you had written something about epileptics or schizophrenics. Yes, we used to apply labels to people to dehumanize them. The politically correct terms these days are "people with epilepsy/schizophrenia". The point is to put the person first, and then the descriptor because no person is defined by only one trait. I do stand by my earlier statement though that people cannot be illegal, even though their status may be. You must understand that those government definitions were created by people who politicize issues. Surely you see that a person is not legal or illegal...their immigration status is. So rather than just fighting for what you want to call it, think about how you would feel if someone were to tell you that your entire existence were invalid, rather than that you crossed a border without permission.

*I'm sorry in advance if you don't like having to be "politically correct". That's just another way to say "sensitive to the subject you're talking about". There is nothing wrong with being sensitive to other people.

Sorry if someone mentioned this; I didn't feel like scanning the whole thread.

I hate when someone says they or someone else "gave 110%/120%/150%/200%." It is literally impossible to give more than 100%. You cannot give more than you have. The ONLY people who are allowed to be described as giving MORE than 100% are those who died in the process...like a soldier or a first responder or something. Even giving 100% would result in passing out due to exhaustion or some other similar serious physical response. Therefore, I think the amount of effort that should be considered commendable is maybe 75-80%. I think this unfortunate trend can be traced to the rise in political correctness, participation trophies/awards, etc. Saying someone gave "110%" makes the person feel way better than saying they "tried really hard."

Sorry if someone mentioned this; I didn't feel like scanning the whole thread.

I hate when someone says they or someone else "gave 110%/120%/150%/200%." It is literally impossible to give more than 100%. You cannot give more than you have. The ONLY people who are allowed to be described as giving MORE than 100% are those who died in the process...like a soldier or a first responder or something. Even giving 100% would result in passing out due to exhaustion or some other similar serious physical response. Therefore, I think the amount of effort that should be considered commendable is maybe 75-80%. I think this unfortunate trend can be traced to the rise in political correctness, participation trophies/awards, etc. Saying someone gave "110%" makes the person feel way better than saying they "tried really hard."

Rant over.

This depends.

With resource allocating typically 8 hours is 100% of a day. If someone is working 12 hour days for a week to get something done, he's actually giving 150% (from a resource allocation point of view). When people are working more than 100% it's an indication that hiring new people is necessary.

With resource allocating typically 8 hours is 100% of a day. If someone is working 12 hour days for a week to get something done, he's actually giving 150% (from a resource allocation point of view). When people are working more than 100% it's an indication that hiring new people is necessary.

I get what you're saying. But your bolded statement is arguable; it's your opinion. I'm sure some people would say that working 12 hours is normal. Everyone has different standards for what's hard work. Maybe that's the root of why this bothers me...When complainypants people say they gave "150%," a mustachian could give same amount of effort and describe it as only a 75% effort in his world of badassity.

However, I have never heard of resource allocation...so I'm out of my realm here and probably shouldn't have replied :)

I get irritated when people misused "myself." Which they do all the time.

"Rachel and myself went to the park."

"He sent a gift to Rachel and myself."

Grr... I think it's because people feel that more syllables make them sound smarter.

Myself is a REFLEXIVE. You only use it when you're talking about something you do TO yourself. (I can hear the off-color jokes coming...)

Rachel and I went to the park. While I was there, I pushed MYSELF on the swing.

YES

Double YES. I think sometimes this comes from people trying to avoid using "me" for fear of making an error ("Him and me went to the park"). Other people do it to sound smart.

I know someone who would say, when she wanted your opinion about her clothes, "Does this look well?" instead of "Does this look good." She was trying to sound klassy. I finally told her it was not only wrong, it made her sound like an idiot (more politely). She doesn't say it around me any longer, but I'm not sure she's given it up completely.

I get irritated when people misuse "myself." Which they do all the time.

"Rachel and myself went to the park."

"He sent a gift to Rachel and myself."

Grr... I think it's because people feel that more syllables make them sound smarter.

Myself is a REFLEXIVE. You only use it when you're talking about something you do TO yourself. (I can hear the off-color jokes coming...)

Rachel and I went to the park. While I was there, I pushed MYSELF on the swing.

The rule I was taught with this one was this: if you can separate the two subjects into their own sentences and it is still correct, then that's what you use. For example, "He sent a gift to myself" is not correct, but "He sent a gift to me" is. The happens a lot with "The main subject of this sentence and me are off to do a random verb thing." You wouldn't say "Me am off to do a thing" you'd say "I am off to do a thing," therefore, "The main subject of this sentence and I are off to do a random verb thing" is correct.

I know someone who would say, when she wanted your opinion about her clothes, "Does this look well?" instead of "Does this look good." She was trying to sound klassy.

Let's not jump to conclusions here. Is it possible she was inquiring about the acuity of her garments' eyesight?

There has been a running gag in Game of Thrones where people keep confusing "less" and "fewer," much to stick-up-his-butt Stannis Baratheon's annoyance. After he died his right hand man picked up the mantle of policing that mistake.

"Why," as in "What's your why?" or "Know your why!" Often directed at entrepreneurs or people who are trying to start a new good habit. What's wrong with the word "reason"? And why is this a new concept, this idea that it's helpful to have a reason for doing something before you do it?

Also...

"Wow. Just wow." (At least half the time, these people go on to say more, so it's not "just" wow.)

Sorry if someone mentioned this; I didn't feel like scanning the whole thread.

I hate when someone says they or someone else "gave 110%/120%/150%/200%." It is literally impossible to give more than 100%. You cannot give more than you have. The ONLY people who are allowed to be described as giving MORE than 100% are those who died in the process...like a soldier or a first responder or something. Even giving 100% would result in passing out due to exhaustion or some other similar serious physical response. Therefore, I think the amount of effort that should be considered commendable is maybe 75-80%. I think this unfortunate trend can be traced to the rise in political correctness, participation trophies/awards, etc. Saying someone gave "110%" makes the person feel way better than saying they "tried really hard."

I get irritated when people misuse "myself." Which they do all the time.

"Rachel and myself went to the park."

"He sent a gift to Rachel and myself."

Grr... I think it's because people feel that more syllables make them sound smarter.

Myself is a REFLEXIVE. You only use it when you're talking about something you do TO yourself. (I can hear the off-color jokes coming...)

Rachel and I went to the park. While I was there, I pushed MYSELF on the swing.

"...please call george or myself". I hate that too! How did that ever become so common?I also hate when I can hear the "t" in often.

That's always irritated me, too, though it's an "acceptable" pronunciation. Whenever someone I'm talking to pronounces the "T," I get distracted by it and basically don't hear the rest of their sentence because my brain has seized up at the word "often," lol.

I get why some folks might be bothered by this, but in my line of work we eat, drink, and breath acronyms. Some of them are so similar that sometimes they need to have something to distinguish them. I have a personal beef with this as well. I met a colonel in Iraq a couple years ago who decided to be a jerk about this. I asked her "We need to [coordinate some military stuff] our ABCS systems (Army Battle Command Systems)." She then lectured me for five minutes why I was being redundant and incorrect, and by the end of her lecture never actually answered my original question.

"Where's it at?" instead of "Where is it?" Why add an extraneous word AND force the sentence to end with a preposition? My guess is that people start by using the contraction "where's" and then the sentence seems weird if they just end it with "it," so they tack on an extra word. I have a friend who likes to answer, "Behind the at."

(No, I don't think the preposition thing should be a hard and fast rule. I'm familiar with Winston Churchill's "That is a stupid rule, up with which I shall not put," but why re-create a perfectly good sentence to break a rule?!)

Also, +1 for unique being a word that is not modifiable. Something either is or is not unique.

I get why some folks might be bothered by this, but in my line of work we eat, drink, and breath acronyms. Some of them are so similar that sometimes they need to have something to distinguish them. I have a personal beef with this as well. I met a colonel in Iraq a couple years ago who decided to be a jerk about this. I asked her "We need to [coordinate some military stuff] our ABCS systems (Army Battle Command Systems)." She then lectured me for five minutes why I was being redundant and incorrect, and by the end of her lecture never actually answered my original question.

If it was spoken as described, she may not have answered your original question because there was no question asked. :P

I get why some folks might be bothered by this, but in my line of work we eat, drink, and breath acronyms. Some of them are so similar that sometimes they need to have something to distinguish them. I have a personal beef with this as well. I met a colonel in Iraq a couple years ago who decided to be a jerk about this. I asked her "We need to [coordinate some military stuff] our ABCS systems (Army Battle Command Systems)." She then lectured me for five minutes why I was being redundant and incorrect, and by the end of her lecture never actually answered my original question.

If it was spoken as described, she may not have answered your original question because there was no question asked. :P

Well, after working with her for a few weeks and learning her level of competence it wouldn't have made much difference.

I hear you, but have to say I do like the straightforwardness of DH/DW/DS/DD, etc. I'll take that any day over the internet adorableness of things like "The FrugalTimbersFamily!" Mrs. FrugalTimbers. BabyTimbers. TheTimbersHound. And so on. College educated adults coming up with monikers like these. My disdain of such things probably started from reading a blog years ago when the author nicknamed her offspring Rock and HardPlace. Please.

I hear you, but have to say I do like the straightforwardness of DH/DW/DS/DD, etc. I'll take that any day over the internet adorableness of things like "The FrugalTimbersFamily!" Mrs. FrugalTimbers. BabyTimbers. TheTimbersHound. And so on. College educated adults coming up with monikers like these. My disdain of such things probably started from reading a blog years ago when the author nicknamed her offspring Rock and HardPlace. Please.

Yeah, those are twee as fuck.

Thank goodness there is another option apart from those and the D-suite.

When I refer to my husband on here, I say "my husband". Fairly straightforward but I think it could catch on.